Why am I subsidising families’ rubbish collection?
Tuesday 31st May 2011, 2:29PM BST.
SINGLE people are subsidising the cost of rubbish collections for large families, according to a pensioner who wants to see the system changed.
The majority of island parishes calculate the refuse rate against TRP, which is worked out by the size of a home. However, the number of people in a house is not taken into account.
John Marshall, 77 (pictured), said he has had enough.
‘It is the unfairness of it that gets me,’ he said.
‘I’m basically subsiding people with larger families in smaller houses. It’s totally unfair.’
- Read the full story in the Guernsey Press. Click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
- To read Guernsey Press stories in full click here for subscription details. Individual editions are now available online.
Island Life
All about Guernsey
Ambassador of the Year 2011
History & Heritage
Visitor Information
Guernsey's government
Campaigns
Voice For Victims
Voice for Victims is a campaign aimed at promoting the rights of those affected by child sexual abuse.
This is Guernsey
Guernsey Press
Useful Links
As a taxpayer I’m subsidising your pension mate, you don’t hear me complaining.
Report abuse
Get a smaller house then.
Report abuse
And presumably he never had a family in the house he is living in.
Report abuse
Rubbish !!!!
Families that recycle are subsidising single people that don’t.
Report abuse
BS, I thought people draw their pensions from pension schemes or social insurance, not from income tax. In any case you`ll be drawing pension at some point.
Report abuse
Next you will hear him say he uses the toilet less, so should avoid that charge as well! You pay for the service…..not how many times you use it.
Report abuse
I fully support Mr Marshall’s complaint. My wife and I live in a near-identical house to my neighbours, and our circumstances are virtually the same – no kids, just a dog. However, we put out one bag a fortnight whereas they put out 2-3 bags a week – ie. up to six times as much.
The current system IS unfair and there is no incentive for householders to improve their bad habits.
@Betty Swollocks – I think it is a reasonable assumption that Mr Marshall has made appropriate contributions to the pension fund throughout his working life, so he’s paid his dues.
Report abuse
Get a larger family!!
Report abuse
It would be an unreasonable administrative nightmare to have a turbulant TRP constantly changing as people move house, people have children, lodgers and/or children leave home and come back, friends/family from overseas come and stay, tenants change or share, people die, couples split up and then get a new partner etc etc etc
I can see Johns point but surely at some stage he must have been part of a larger household ie, mum & dad or wife/children etc? So its fair in the long run.
Report abuse
I totally support Mr Marshall. The sooner we have a ‘pay as you throw’ scheme the better. This works very well in other countries and could easily be made to work here too. Nothing to do with TRP. It’s how much you throw out and how little you recycle that counts.
Socially irresponsible people like Donkey’s Wotsits’ neighbours and my neighbours are filling up the landfill site at a rate of knots. The present system is like making everyone pay the same set rate for their petrol however much they use. Totally unfair.
Report abuse
Let a room or two. You know, instead of hogging them all to yourself! Or swap situation with a family living in one room, or do you realy want it all your way? Ah yes, I see the problem now.
Report abuse
I don’t have kids so I shouldn’t have to pay via the states contribution system for schools.
This comment about rubbish is like saying that because he doesn’t use something as much he shouldn’t contribute.
Mr – it’s called being part of a COMMUNITY. In one of those, some people use services at a different rate than others. No one is ever going to stop others being a bit wasteful, policy can encourage better behaviour that’s all. This is a very small minded argument and not worthy of a news story.
Report abuse
There are too many variables to this, recycling, consumption habits, food intake and shopping habits.
However I would argue that within a society suffering from overcrowding, it is irresponsible for single individuals to live in oversized houses they don’t need and expect to not pay a levy on it. I would say it’s fair for them to pay the offset between the potential number of residents and actual residents per square footage.
Report abuse
The ONLY fair system is to pay per bag that you dump. Buy bags from *whoever* and only rubbish in those bags will be collected. Can’t get fairer than that.
Report abuse
Unless they bring in a charge per bag (weighed?!) I can’t see how his ‘problem’ is going to be rectified. Even then that might only encourage fly tipping.
There are many people who don’t recycle, singletons AND families. I’d bet that the further you go down the economic chain the less people do it, despite the fact that poorer households are more likely to live on packaged food.
You could claim this ‘unfairness’ over anything: healthcare, roads, public services (according to your use/non-use) but that’s what being part of a community is all about: Sharing.
Report abuse
In this instance the man is obtaining some benefit from paying his refuse rates and he has the choice of obtaining more benefit from them if he wished to put out more rubbish.
In the instance of a childless person on the other hand, he has no choice but to contribute a lot more than the refuse rates in taxes which go towards paying for family allowance, schools and education etc, and he obtains no benefit in return whilst the parents and children receive all the benefit.
Report abuse
“SINGLE people are subsidising the cost of rubbish collections for large families, according to a pensioner who wants to see the system changed.”
This is not just about single people subsidising the cost but any household who, regardless of amount of occupants and size of house, only leave small amounts of rubbish to be collected. I have two young children, myself and my husband living in my 3 bedroomed house and we throw away about two small black bin sacks a month. We re-cycle and compost and I too am fed up that other houses along my road, of similar size and occupancy throw away a lot more than we do because they can’t be bothered. The system of buying bin sacks works well in other countries so why not here?
Report abuse
It would be ok paying these rates if the bin men actually came instead of always missing days
Report abuse
Since as a community we need to reduce the amount of ‘residual’ waste that we are producing, every encouragement should be given to us all to reduce the amount we put out for collection.
We all benefit from living in a community that is well educated, that has good roads and good health care, so we should all be happy to pay towards those things.
People who produce a lot of rubbish…… far from creating a benefit for us all…… contribute towards making a problem even worse. They create no benefit whatsoever and nor do they need to make the extra waste…. its a choice. They therefore should have to pay more than those that who are doing their best to reduce the amount of residual waste that they create, because those people are trying to help resolve the problem, which benefits us all.
Report abuse
The happy community of guernsey talking rubbish again.
Report abuse
There are two points which I believe would help save money and are quite easy to implement. Firstly it should be a requirement to have a Dust Bin. I know this sounds odd but the amount of black sacks people put out not in a dustbin is surprising, this would also stop clean up teams having to address the same areas. A dustbin costs I believe 5 Pound hardly a huge amount! Secondly it is too easy to blame the bin men these guys do a superb job not many people would want to do. If you don’t already recycle I would recommend you try it for a week you may surprise yourself how much less refuse you have.
Report abuse
Anmyone who doesnt agree with the crux of this story (i.e. People paying the same amount for a service they use less), obviously doesnt care about a, the land fill site, and b, probably dump more than their “fair share” themselves.
It seems quite crazy that refuse is based on the size of your house and not the amount of rubbish you actually generate.
Report abuse
MHH, St Marcouf,
The school analogy (“he does use the schools, but shares the cost, so why not share the cost of bin collection”) is bogus.
Maximising the amount of education, and making it universally available, benefits the economic and cultural well-being of society as a whole.
Maximising the amount of rubbish disposed of at the tip might have been justifiable on public health grounds in the past, but these days we are considerably wealthier and have recycling to boot. The rates-based model is an anachronism.
Report abuse
Well said ChrisJ. What could be fairer than ‘pay as you throw’?
The more you put out to use up our valuable and dwindling landfill resource the more you should pay.
Also, the economic incentive of PAYT is the best possible incentive for recycling and choosing to buy consumer products that are not covered in plastic packaging. The rates based model in unfair, unsustainable and ineffective.
Report abuse
It never ceases to amaze me at the wild comparisons people make in these ‘debates’ in an effort to support an entrenched position, which then do not stand up to a second’s scrutiny. Thank you ChrisJ for pointing some of this out.
I often find that a good way to see if a policy change would be sensible is to reverse it. In other words imagine (in this case) that we currently had a system where there was free recycling and people then paid, according to weight, for everything else that they wanted collected from their bin. Suppose then that someone proposed scrapping that and saying that you would be charged according to the size of your house irrespective of the amount you put out and that no matter if you managed to drive 90% of your waste to a bring bank site, it would make no difference. I think there would be a riot at the stupidity of such a situation, yet, that is what we have now.
This is not a debate about ‘your house is bigger than mine’, however much some people would like it to be.
Report abuse
As you can see I am a Vale parishioner we have one collection a week around our area on a Monday night.
Well this week I was having a lovely walk through the lanes on Monday and probably because it was a Bank Holiday many residents had put their rubbish out early in the day, well lo and behold a dog/seagull or whatever had completely opened the black sacks, but what was even more amazing the lack of recycling that people do, or dont do in these cases,in these bags were milk cartons, pizza boxes, tins etc etc, now this is bad, so come on lets have more recycling and stop this lazy attitude saying well it goes in landfill anyway, so whats the point. I felt like knocking on the doors and telling these people how lazy they were, but I probably would have ended up in landfill myself.
Report abuse
I eat my breakfast, lunch and sometimes dinner at my office, out or sometimes at my parents to save money. All my trash goes out with the restaurant or office trash so I hardly have any rubbish at all. Why should I have to pay so much?
Report abuse
@rocquaine: yes indeed!
And here’s yet another way to illustrate the fundamental difference between the ‘benefit’ of schooling, and the ‘benefit’ of having your rubbish collected:
Man A says ‘I’ve paid my income tax – I shall obtain the most benefit possible by ensuring that my children get as much out of their education as they can’. Good outcome.
Man B says ‘I’ve paid my parish rates – I shall obtain the most benefit possible by putting out as much rubbish as I can’. Bad outcome.
If everyone pays the same for a benefit regardless of whether they use it or not, then the incentive is to use as much of it as possible. In the case of education, this is a good thing. In the case of generating rubbish, it’s not.
The quickest way to get the Change We Need ™ would be for people to give up recycling and refuse to restart until there’s an incentive for them to reduce the amount of rubbish they produce. I know people who have already done this.
Report abuse
Well he obviously is taking living space that could be used to hold a family for just himself. So yes he should get a smaller house or perhaps a lodger?
Report abuse
ChrisJ
Very well put.
The way you have just torn apart that silly analogy just proves that J Marshall`s point is a valid one.
Report abuse
My comments were made simply to highlight that we all pay for things from which we benefit more or less than others and that some of us pay heavily for things from which we don’t benefit at all.
My comments were not made from the perspective of how to reduce the amount of rubbish we produce. The answer to that, though, is less people produce less rubbish, so perhaps those who wish to indulge in having children, each of whom will produce about 60 tonnes of rubbish in a lifetime, should have a rubbish duty levied on them.
Report abuse
ChrisJ
I think EVENTUALLY the States will go for a bag & tag system
Yesterday I looked at my box of recycling and was sorely tempted to just empty it into my black sack ( currently one a month … cost to dump it myself at Chouet .. £12 per year)
I didn’t do it because I know that recycling is the right thing to do but the sheer frustration of having to wait so long for the States to make a decision is giving me ‘dark thoughts’
Please don’t tell me there is a team of civil servants working on the waste strategy 40 hours a week.Give the job to the Vale school infants and they will give you a bag & tag answer by the end of the week
Report abuse
I understand your point Chris and it is a very good one. I remember it being used when there was an article on private schooling some years back and parents with children in private schools complaining that they paid fees twice…. I think that is their choice.. and it is Mr Marshalls choice to live in a huge house- the luxury of having money I suppose… and again if you have the money you can pay for the road side recycling which i believe costs £12 per month or do it yourself if you are able bodied. If you don’t have the money for this service then as you get older and less able (ie a simple bad shoulder) then it is quite impossible to recycle and et voila -extra bags out the front of your house. If indeed we did weigh and measure bags (an administrative task which would at least double the time taken for the rubbish run) then many low income households with elderly less physically able persons or disabled persons may find themselves being fined- how is that fair?
I doubt that anyone would want to create as much rubbish as possible “to obtain the most benefit possible”. That is an unrealistic assumption. I like to think the best of people but I do believe in incentives. The only way to tackle the issue fairly is via curbside recycling for all. Curbside recycling once a week and rubbish collection once a fortnight.
Report abuse
Bag & Tag is an obvious solution. If that was coupled with kerbside collections of recyclables… even better. Both are examples of ways that we could be incentivising people to reduce the amount of waste that they put out for disposal. The less that is put out for ‘disposal’ the less we will have to fork out for some treatment process.
This is why any waste strategy should first and foremost focus on these front end inititatives that are about minimising the amount of ‘residual’ waste that requires dealing with.
Report abuse
How about this for an actual strategy ….
Make two collections every week ( in some sort of paid for bag ) from every household – one clean/dry waste , one wet/dirty ..
The clean dry “waste” goes to a reclamation centre centre, where absolutely anything and everything that can be is reused/recyled.
Any other waste can then be thrown in a hole in the ground / a biodigester / SMALL incinerator , whatever.
Two collections a week from most households would be no different to now for most.
We wouldn’t need the bring banks – so we could reduce the number of journeys to and from them, both by individuals leaving recycling, and the lorrys collecting it.
None of us would have to sort and transport our recyling ourselves – which I believe would help “convert” those who currently can’t be bothered, or aren’t able, to recycle. Those of us who already recycle, well our lives would get that bit easier.
Although obviously the above would invovle far too much joined up thinking and action to ever work in Guernsey ….
Report abuse
Eight or nine years ago the parish refuse rate funded only the black bag collection & the cost of running Mont Cuet. One could argue that the charge then was not on a ‘user pays’ basis as it related to rateable value but in practical terms it was trivial, just pence a week, so nobody worried too much about it.
However now, on top of this charge, households are paying a hypothecated TRP based tax to fund various solid waste related expenditure, the payments to Lurgi and Suez, recycling initiatives, etc. This additional revenue could just as well be raised by increasing the States TRP on dwellings rather than it being collected via gate fees and thence the parish refuse rate. Most people would pay the same in total as they do now as both bills are based on dwelling area.
The debate should be about the future when our new solid waste strategy is up and running and requires funding. Is a pure ‘user pays’ system, eg charges by weight or volume, fair or should there be at least an element of shared funding either on an ‘ability to pay’ basis, eg from income tax or on an ‘area of dwelling’ basis eg through TRP?
Report abuse
Do you not agree, Shane, that if we want recycling and waste minimisation to be central to our future waste strategy then we MUST implement a ‘pay as you go/polluter pays’ policy throughout?
Anything else would be counter productive and would eat away at the incentive for island citizens to help make this strategy work, surely??
It is not rocket science!
Report abuse
Shane Langlois – charging refuse rates on a persons “ability to pay” is probably one of the most stupid things I’ve ever read.
Whatever is decided by the States needs to be simple – and doesn’t require another 50 civil servants to run it.
Charge everyone for black bag collection. A quid a bag should do it. You buy them (specially marked) in shops and garages – money to the States. Simple.
However for that to work you need to legislate to make people recycle. Recycling should be free at the point of use – free coloured bags for different types of recycling – collected fortnightly from the curb. Banks provided for flat dwellers.
Of course this will cost – the cost of this should be charged at cost per TRP using the existing mechanism. Again not difficult.
Also we don’t need a skinking great burner. We need to buy Les Vardes from Ronez when Mont Cuet is full. This would last many many years.
In the meantime we might actually elect some States members who can finally sort out a proper solid waste strategy.
I won’t hold my breath.
Report abuse
Mr Marshall, 40-50 yrs ago my Grandparents never put out any rubbish, and buried or burnt most ot it.
No doubt Mr Marshall my Grandparents subsidised you when you were bringing up your family and leaving out all those bin bags when they were leaving out none.
Can you please send me a cheque of say £800.00 which I am owed as a result of my Grandparents subsidising you.
Report abuse
Simples..
Put out more rubbish……..get your moneys worth
Report abuse
Charging on size of property is (agree with Gilthead) the most unfair way to charge for a service such as collection of refuse.
If (an example)it costs 3m a year for collection of refuse from homesonly and recycling centres then if there are 30000 homes – each home has an annual charge of £100 to put a bin out and free recycling of all goods above the permitted 2 bags.
Report abuse
To Quote:
‘I’m basically subsiding people with larger families in smaller houses. It’s totally unfair.’
So he admits he is occupying a dwelling far bigger than many who have large families.
In some contries there are added taxes if a person should occupy a dwelling that is bigger than there needs.
He should be grateful Guernsey does not have that…
Report abuse
Town Dweller,
In that case you can expect a class-action lawsuit from everyone over 40 to compensate them for the adverse health effects of your grandparents’ unregulated burning and dumping of rubbish.
Report abuse
Shane Langlois- charging refuse rates on a users ability to pay as you suggest is how it is done now. It can be argued that John Marshall can afford to occupy a huge house just by himself and can afford to pay more.
Sometimes people can create the same amount of rubbish but may differ in the amount they put out, for example, a person or family who is budgeting and has all of their meals at homes and doesn’t go away on holidays may create the same as another person or family who eats out a lot and goes on many holidays but will differ extremely in their output in front of the home- In these circumstances, can the latter point the finger and charge the former with laziness? No, they cannot.
So how do we solve this problem together as a community? The answer lies in getting people to maximise recycling – making it as easy as possible to recycle whilst creating gentle disincentives to produce a lot of litter.
The cheapest and easiest way to achieve this is to reverse the current system – weekly curbside recycling collection instead of rubbish collection…. and then people can take their own rubbish to a rubbish bring bank. People who don’t want to take their rubbish to the bringbanks can pay for private pick-up (£2? per bag) or if you are disabled then this service should be free. Sometimes the simplest changes can have the greatest effects.
Report abuse
I agree with betty swollocks. The younger generation are subsidising your pension so button it. We are also funding your lifestyle by being forced to pay excessive sums for a place to live. Donkeys Wotsits seems to live in a house that is bigger than they require (there seem to be more people living next door to them as the rubbish produced is greater). This is inefficient allocation of a scarce resource. Stop being so greedy and move into a more suitably sized house. There are young local families that need the space and you are just being selfish.
Report abuse
of course teh best solution would be to introduce a land value tax, so that all these selfish old people have more incentive to free up their big houses for the generation that needs them.
Report abuse
Mr Marshall,77, appears to be standing in front of his house in the photo. Clearly it’s not a mansion and in a Communist world it would probably be deemed too large for him as a sole occupier
However I wonder if it is the home that he has spent the greater part of his life in, where he lived with his wife and family,with all those memories?
I wonder if he intends to leave it to his children?
I wonder if he has looked at the rabbit hutches that pass for 250K apartments these days and thought the better of downsizing?
I also wonder if Scott Ogier will actually come back to the States this year with a completed report on the waste strategy?
I have a burning suspicion backed up by the dark rumours afoot that it just might stretch beyond the next election in April 2012 so that perhaps a mini or a midi burner can be bullied through the new tenderfoot Assembly
I hope not because that would surely put an end to Ogier’s political career and those of his
sub-committee
Get it sorted well before the next election Mr O or be prepared to pay the price
Report abuse
inbreda – I think you’re talking about Council Tax (properties are banded on a value basis).
Can’t see that going down too well…except with Estate Agents and RICS.
Report abuse
@inbreda – why is he selfish? There are plenty of family size properties on the market for young families to purchase.
Yes they are expensive, but they are out there, so he is not using up a valuable rescource.
Report abuse
I think “nobby” has the best idea. Let the states sell special “dustbin” bags so that the dustmen will only collect this type of bag, then any householder can put out as few or as many as they wish on “dustbin night” Job sorted. and a few more quid in the State’s pocket to waste, or not!
Report abuse
I live in a small flat where I don’t have space to separate “recycling” from “rubbish”; I don’t have a garden so I can’t compost anything; I don’t drive and so can’t take anything to the bring banks or recycling areas. I know other people in the same situation, especially pensioners. So you want to punish us by making us pay extra for bin bags simply because we don’t live in houses with gardens and we don’t drive, either by choice or through ill-health. Perhaps someone would like to call round to my place every day (and to all the other people in the same position) to see if there is something to be recycled?
Report abuse
I think ‘pay per bag’ is the right way to go but we would need better policing of fly tipping and proper conrol over bonfires. My neighbours make quite enough niusance of themselves already by burning the traditional fresh grass cuttings, plastic plant pots etc. I could do without them adding household waste to the toxic mix. Some nights its like Chenobyl round here!
Report abuse
I also live in a small flat. The kitchen is barely big enough for the small bin I have in there and there is absolutely no room for separate recycling containers.
I don’t drive and therefore don’t have easy access to bring banks/recycling bins. Why should people in the same position as me have to pay extra?
I do, and will continue to, put everything out in my normal black rubbish sack on bin night. I don’t have any other option.
Report abuse
You should report your neighbours to Environmental Health Beanjar. You’re sucking dioxins and other poisons from the burning plastics (worse than passive smoking) into your lungs.
As for the flat dwellers, 1 and 2, well I am also a top floor flat dweller with no car. Admittedly I am fit and able but I see no excuse whatsoever for not separating my tins, cans, bottles, cardboard and recyclable plastics and taking them by cycle or by scooter (or even on foot) to my nearest recycling point.
Introduce bag and tag/pay as you throw ASAP and we might see individuals with lame excuses like these changing their lazy, antisocial behaviour. You two flat dwellers fully deserve to be ‘penalised’ – unless you have some disability that means you can’t get out.
Report abuse
Martino – How dare you be so rude about someone you know nothing about? Lucky you to be fit and able and able to walk/cycle/scooter to your nearest recycling point. My nearest recyling point is a long way from my flat, and I don’t cycle or use a scooter. Perhaps you’d like to take a walk with my newspapers? People don’t have to have a physical disability in order not to recycle – we just need better provision for those who are less able than others, for whatever reason, to get to the recycling banks. Bring in kerbside recycling and I’ll do it with pleasure. I hope when you are old and less able to do things people aren’t so rude and judgemental to you as you are to others.
Report abuse
Martino, it may surprise you to hear that I did indeed report my noxious neighbours to Environmental Health who pointed out that they were not actually breaking any laws and ‘had I tried talking to them?’ They did finally promise to post them a standard (but actually quite good) leaflet on ‘Bonfire Niusance’. This was a while back. Maybe guernsey has now dragged itself into the 20th century and passed a law on polution, or am I being wildly optimistic?
Report abuse
Martino,
Please, have a heart. Clearly flat dwellers cannot possibly reduce, reuse or recycle their rubbish. Nor can the disabled, non-drivers, people without much time, pensioners on fixed incomes, first-time buyers, nurses, teachers, horse riders, boat owners, town traders, Freds in sheds, working mums, the squeezed middle or busy States members.
Change is impossible; we will just have to destroy the environment!
Report abuse
Pay buy the bag then the states can charge what they like, just like the fuel tax (Robbery).
Report abuse
This is a great idea from Mr Marshall; think of all the extra employment it will create;
A person to go round the streets at night (one per parish of course) to count how many bins, on average, each household puts out. Night workers are paid more of course.
Then you need another person to input the information on to a spreadsheet in a computer.
A third person to assess all the information and independently determine how many bags on average each property places out.
Then of course each Parish will need a manager to objectively oversee this process.
What a fantastic idea Mr Marshall!! And who will pay for all of this extra employment? Why of course you and me!!
Mr Marshall, if you haven’t noticed you live in a C-O-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y!!
Report abuse
@inbreda
You have been very quick to (hopefully incorrectly) assume I am selfish. I would invite you to read my post thoroughly.
Let me repeat – we live in a house of the same size as our neighbours. Neither of us have kids and we each have a dog. That’s the whole point – our circumstances are basically the same, yet they produce up to six times the amount of rubbish. How do you deduce I’m selfish from that?
However, let’s discuss your argument – we have chosen to never have kids but why should I feel obliged to give up my home and be crammed into a smaller house just to make space for those who do have kids? Perhaps it’s not me who is selfish. Our childless lifestyle is less of a burden on scarce resources, which is part of the reason why we decided upon it.
Report abuse
You flat dwellers are so lazy.
I completely agree with this gentleman, we should pay per bag, we shouldn’t pay any extra, just scrap the current system and pay for a plastic bag. I could make a killing, as I specialise in plastic bag making.
Report abuse
Ray says: “I have a burning suspicion backed up by the dark rumours afoot that it just might stretch beyond the next election in April 2012 so that perhaps a mini or a midi burner can be bullied through the new tenderfoot Assembly”
That would be a good outcome in comparison to the ‘options’ they are considering now. Nearly all the scenarios under consideration have a recycling rate of a paltry 50% – i.e. a tiny bit more than we are doing now. Given that this includes a hefty chunk of garden green waste, it leaves about 35,000 to 40,000 tonnes of waste to be ‘treated’ One of the ‘options’ is an incinerator – Suez sized.
The only difference between Bernie’s burner and what is on the table now, is this time they can say “The public chose it”
Report abuse
@Beanjar. If that is indeed the case with regard to noxious fumes from bonfires then it’s outrageous. It should be an offence to burn anything other than dry, organic material on a bonfire and only then when it’s not causing a nuisance to others. I wouldn’t want to end people’s right to have a responsible bonfire but Environmental Health need more teeth to stop idiots burning plastics etc in their own mini incinerators.
@FlatDweller if you are indeed old/infirm/disabled and without any form of transport open to you (isn’t there a bus that passes your door?) then you are one of the tiny few with an excuse for not separating and recycling. Interestingly, you appear to have no difficulty acquiring all these consumable items but you do have trouble when it comes to getting rid of the waste packaging/containers in a responsible way. I wonder why that is?
I think ChrisJ summed it up well in his post.
Report abuse
@Town Dweller
Well yes, we could do it your way – that’s the kind of approach the authorities might insist on. However, as others have suggested, the much simpler approach is to have a system where you buy ‘official’ bags at a fixed rate and only rubbish put out in those bags would be collected.
Mr Marshall would only buy a small number of bags a year, I would buy about 20 and my neighbours might be buying over 100.
It’s a fair system with little admin.
Report abuse
Where I used to live each home was issued with a green wheelie bin, there were 3 sizes and they were issued according to how many persons were in each household. If you wanted to you could pay a subsidy to have a larger bin than your household size warranted. Each household was also issued with a yellow wheelie bin for their re-cycling.
You were not allowed to exceed the capacity of your given bin.
Out of curiosity does anyone know how many tons of black plastic sack are put into the tip each year?
Report abuse
D_T
About 13,000 tonnes – which is about a third of the overall waste that goes into the tip.
Report abuse
This works out at an average of 4kg per person per week – (children included).
We are lucky to have a garden, so we can compost food waste (which is the biggest single component of household waste). If we recycle everything that is recyclable, we have found that it is possible to get it down to just 1kg per person per week.
Report abuse
We do not want to adopt the green wheelie bin as some UK councils have. They become an eyesore as no-one bothers to remove them from their frontage after collection night. A far better solution is the to buy the official bag which would be the only ones collected on the designated night. As many as you like but £2-£3 per bag.
Report abuse
I fully support DTs post and rocquaines reply is very insightful. In an age where we are trying to limit plastic shopping bag use (and all plastic packaging) it seems absolutely ridiculous to throw rubbish out in “official” plastic bags – or any type of plastic bag. If we are really trying to create change for environmental purposes then Wheelie bins win hands down.
Report abuse
Wil
Perhaps bio-degradable sacks but NEVER wheelie bins
Report abuse
But to support the scrapping of plastic bags (even biodegrable ones) for shopping and then support them for rubbish bags is contradictory. Rocs fiqures show that they are an enormous problem. Some people think that wind farms and solar panels are an eyesore…. if they help the environment then I say bring em on. Same for wheelie bins. The vast majority will treat them sensibly (same they do for plastic bags now) and they are easier for the elderly and disabled people to use because of the wheels.
In any case I think the option that I presented initially about reversing the current system, as a first step prior to discussing rubbish wheelie bins, would be a good first step in the right direction. Another option would be to just alternate the weeks – one week for rubbish collection, the next for recycling and so on….. no more manpower or hours needed than before just a simple adjustment of the current business process.
Report abuse
Why not charge people to use the recycling banks and with the money collected reduce all the parishs refuse rates.
Report abuse
thats nothing,,, you are all subsidising the multi billion pound finance industry..
Report abuse
Ray
The wheelie bin allows for the use of a chip that identifys the owner and bin tippers can weigh each bin. Charges can be calculated onboard the vehicle.
Contractors would have to upgrade to this system, at a cost, or employ more people as mentioned earlier to identify each bin bag individually, at a cost.
Report abuse
Matt’s idea is one of the stupidest notions I’ve ever seen on these forums. People should be charged for NOT recycling, not charged FOR recycling. Get with the programme Matt – or were you being deliberately daft as a wind up? I just can’t tell these days!
Report abuse
Donkey’s Wotsits: Have you never heard of the Black Market’? If people are going to save £100s of pounds a year on their rates, don’t you think some unscrupulous people would sell their bags, on or dare I say some may be counterfeited?
May sound far fetched, but where there’s muck there’s brass.
Report abuse
It is not 13,000 tonnes of plastic bags (black or otherwise) but that amount of household rubbish collected by the parish, commonly called ‘black bag’ waste.
As an aside I don’t think the black bag itself matters in the grand scheme of things. Plastic shopping bags (‘single-use’ carriers)are problematic from a litter point of view as well as the amount of them.
However, I think people should revert to placing their ‘black bag’ in a dustbin for the sole purpose of discouraging rats, which are everywhere these days.
The phone-in was interesting this morning. It did not seem to occur to either of the deputies that the issue is about reducing WASTE. If we had kerbside collections then people would be putting out the same amount, just differently segregated. The recycling goes ‘free’ and the residual gets charged, so one is in control of how much one pays. If you analyse the contents of your bin, there is very little that is TRULY residual.
Quin was on about his M&S tomatoes, diverging into and reminiscing on the decline of the tomato industry, but I expect if he cared to take a closer look, he would have found that the tray that his tomatoes come in is recyclable anyway.
Report abuse
Steve
Big Brother will arrive quickly enough without volunteering to put our necks on the block
I’m against wheelie bins because while many of us will have driveways and gardens to store them, others such as those people who live in Pedvin Street for instance do not
Think of the hazard to pedestrians that 30 – 40 large wheelie bins would be in Pedvin Street on collection night
Even worse would be George Street for instance.There are no footpaths so the bins would be in the roadway on both sides,causing a hazard to pedestrians AND traffic
Report abuse
How much plastic goes into a wheelie bin? How much energy do they take to make? And how much for the collection vehicles? How much do these encourage unnecessary waste? What about the environmental impact (small e and big e). You may be able to identify the owner by a chip but what is to stop others dumping their waste in your bin? And finally, why would you need something so big?
Report abuse
Wait until Mr Marshall gets his latest water bill……
Report abuse
Matt: “Why not charge people to use the recycling banks and with the money collected reduce all the parishes’ refuse rates”.
Er, because we are trying to reduce the amount of rubbish that goes into the the tip?
Report abuse
@trip15
I lived in france not the uk, wheelie bins were rarely an eyesore, they are certainly less unsightly than black sacks, much cleaner and easier to move. Also the same system that would be required for these could also be used for yellow re-cycling wheelie bins which would finally give us island wide kerb side re-cycling, not to mention that we would not be dumping 13000 tonnes of black sack (thank you rocquaine)
Report abuse
Ray, I understand but I’m sure that there can be a work-around for those areas. Many places overseas would have the same problem in some areas. Perhaps if it is deemed impossible for some roads then they can stick to the plastic bags. We should not stall island wide recycling for the sake of a few roads and why would anyone want to?
The argument of wheelie bins being hazardous is interesting though and I have heard it many times before. But I’ve often wondered if the argument is a valid one when compared to black sacks. Does a black sack really take up less space on a road/footpath than a wheelie bin? If so then it’s certainly not by much when it’s only the footprint to be considered. A wheelie bin would definitely take up less ground space than two sacks- no question there. So the argument that it is a hazard, is equal for both methods -black sack and wheelie bin… using either method does not change that fact.
The only advantage that black sacks have over wheelies is that you can put them on stairs and steep slopes and its areas such as these which put out bags on stairs which will require a workaround. If internal storage space is an issue then smaller sized wheelies should be made available.
Report abuse
Wil, have you ever thought about the environmental impact of producing a plastic wheelie bin? I imagine using a plastic bag once a week for let’s say 10 years would still be much more environmentally friendly than an injection moulded plastic wheelie bin.
Report abuse
I am very happy to report that my neighbours broke their own record last week, both of thier wheelie bins were full, with 2 sacks each, there were a further 4 sacks around the bins, and about 7 cardbox boxes which hadnt even been flattened piled up next to the bins.
The reason I am happy(ish) to report this, is FINALLY, after them abusing the system with slightly smaller amounts of waste for about the last 3 years, the waste truck only emptied the 2 wheelie bins, leaving the 4 sacks and all the cardboard behind.
However the best is, as yet, they havent removed this excess waste from blocking the pavement, the boxes are now sodden after the rain, and now most of the pavement is blocked, clearly they are aggreived that their continual abuse of the system has finally been stemmed.
Not bad for a family of 3!
I can see why Mr Marshall is fed up, my TRP is bigger than theirs and I very rarely go above 1 sack.
Report abuse
Wheelie bins are not the answer for Guernsey. They are suburban, unsightly and overcluttering.
Report abuse
What is effectively being proposed here is statutory recycling; that’s a step-change from the current voluntary system.
Has this ever been costed? Rosie? You’re in the machine aren’t you? What are the figures?
Report abuse
Dave haslam
Your Douzaine number is in the phone book .. or perhaps a Press photo might do the trick?
Report abuse
Martino
I don’t have a bus that passes my door. I don’t have any recycling bins within comfortable walking distance. I do however have a disability which at times prevents me doing alot of things that able bodied people take for granted.
Perhaps you would be ever so kind and help me to do my recycling?
Report abuse
Mr G, I often ask that same question when I am using “bag for life” bags. A lot of plastic goes into those bags and they dont really last that long anyway. The same argument applies to wheelie bins, however on a grander scale as they do last a long long time and at the end of their life are themselves recyclable.
Whilst I do support wheelie bins – in most cases – as a first step I think we just need to simply reverse the current system in an effort to get it up and running. As I said initially – islandwide weekly recycling pickup and then individuals take their own rubbish away themselves or via a private company. Elderly persons and persons with a disability should get their recycling as well as rubbish picked up for free. Lets get it up and running first and discuss wheelie bins later.
Report abuse
Hi Flat Dweller, if you read my posts again you’ll see I did say that people who are disabled/infirm do have an excuse for not recycling but the vast majority do not.
There are far too many selfish, irresponsible, anti social pigs (like Dave Haslam’s neighbours and some of mine) who have no excuse whasoever.
As for doing your recycling, if you were one of my neighbours and you needed help I probably would!
Report abuse
Hi Neil,
Some recycling streams cost more than others, but evened out recycling cost us approx £67 a tonne in 2009 (for everything deposited in Bring Banks- including processing, transport etc). Mont Cuet is about £130 per tonne (mixed load) and Suez was going to cost us an eye watering £200 per tonne.
If we are going to create waste then there will always be a cost in dealing with those materials. We can however minimise those costs by focusing our waste strategy on the front end of the waste stream….. at Prevention, Reduction and Reuse, so that there is less that needs Recycling, and even less that needs Disposal.
From a financial and environmental point of view, reducing waste and rescuing materials before it becomes rubbish or ‘residual’ waste that then needs ‘disposal’ is always the better option.
Pay as You Throw & Kerbside collections of recylates would both have a very beneficial effect on the reduction of ‘residual’ waste, and therefore should be part of any strategy. I am afraid tho’, that I think the States are less than enthusiastic about either. I am expecting to see both wheedled out of the consultation process………. I REALLY, really hope that I am wrong!
Report abuse
Martino
I would happily recycle if either I was more able bodied enough to carry my recycling a fair distance or if there were recycling bins near to where I live.
Wish you did live near me re your kind sentiments of possibley helping if I were your neighbour.
Report abuse
You’re not in the Vale by any chance Flat Dweller 2?
Just a thought.
Report abuse
Rosie
See rocquaine’s 3/6 post about all roads seeming to lead back to a Suez size incinerator!
Are you in on this year’s workshops?
Is rocquaine’s worry true?
If a burner keeps cropping up as the top choice can we have that as an official announcement as soon as possible please so that the troops can be organised once again to protest loud and clear… with political careers at stake this time
Whatever second best choice is,go for that,not a giant incinerator
Anyway after the Lurgi and Suez cancellations which international firm of repute will want to deal with the States of Guernsey? ( unless they are content to make a few million on cancellation fees for drawing up a few design plans)
I wonder if Spruce is still sucking his thumb in the corner or if he is steering Ogier towards his dream incinerator?
Report abuse
What exactly is in his bag? It really looks like an egg carton…Surely it can’t be as that is recyclable.
I haven’t read the whole article but it would be interesting if the GP could do a follow up story on John Marshall. Im sure we would all like to know how he does it- does he eat out everyday? Spend lots of time at other peoples houses? Does he ever have any guests? How much recycling does he do? Does he incinerate everything, have a compost heap or bury it in his own backyard? and what exactly is in that bag? My parents would fill that bag every week just with used teabags. The GP should follow it up – for educational purposes please.
Report abuse
@D_T
Wheelie bins are an eyesore (you admit this at least partially by saying rarely) whether in the UK or any other country.
If you are recycling, whether this be by bring-banks or kerbside, you DO NOT NEED a wheelie bin. If you are only putting out 1/4 black bin bag full once per week, why would you need a 120 litre wheelie bin?
Also, once the black bin sacks are collected, they are gone. The wheelie bins are still there until the householder can be bothered to put them away (if they bother at all).
And you know what? Most people fill their wheelie bins with … you guessed it .. black bin sacks! So that’s a great saving on plastic, eh?
Report abuse
I can not believe how rude people are to a member of society who has raised a family has worked hard and paid taxes which totally justifies him collecting a pension and living in a house which he has paid for. Try removing the chip off your shoulder and realise that if you want something from life you have to work for it.
Regarding the issue of rubbish collection, in an ideal world our bin would be weight at collection and we would be charged accordinglly – this is an incentive to reduce, re-use and recycle our waste and therefore look after our island for our children’s sake.
Report abuse
Ray,
You can download the workshop results from the States website.
It is very confusing and difficult to make sense of, but PSD helpfully do a summary at the end.
Top 3 choices favour incineration at present, either here our using Jersey’s.
On the wheelie bin front, I was only pointing out the technology available with using them.
Wheelie bins are available in various sizes from around 90lt up to 360lt. The average black bag runs at around 70-90lt.
I would assume a communal bin system could be worked out for places such as Pedvin St etc
Report abuse
Tortevite
Well said.
Report abuse
Apparently, despite being directed to look into it over a year ago, no substantive work has been done on the possibility of using Jersey. I wonder why?
Report abuse
My issue is not about incineration per se, it is about the size of any incinerator. Despite the enthusiasm from the public for waste minimisation, PSD are generally only looking at 50% recycling in their scenarios. In round figures last year, the recycling rate was 45%, which was 35% actual recycling and 10% garden clippings.
Garden clippings, or ‘green waste’ are counted towards the recycling total. So our true recycling rate in PSD’s new waste minimisation ‘scenarios’ will be a paltry 40%! Pathetic!
At this level we know that there is still about 15,000 tonnes of recyclable material going into the tip (out of 35,000 tonnes), so there is going to be no noticeable attempt to capture this material. Hence a ‘treatment plant’ of 35,000 tonnes will be needed.
Appalling.
Report abuse
Steve
Thanks for the tip. My word no wonder it’s taking so long.I should think most of the 40 hours per week the team has been spending on this for the last year or so has been taken up with preparing overkill reports and charts and then hiding them in that most unfriendly States website
I couldn’t find the helpful summary but thanks for the warning that incineration is at the top of the list
If I read it right PSD will be reporting to the States in July.That should be a lively meeting
Report abuse
Calling all Jersey folk..Calling all Jersey folk..
What’s the current situation with your new incinerator?
Is it up and running at full speed yet?
Is there a problem with finding enough rubbish to keep it going at a viable rate?
Has it pushed up the cost of dumping rubbish to the average citizen?
Do you have a recycling system?
Does a recycling system clash with the need for the incinerator to be kept ‘well fed’?
All replies gratefully received
Report abuse
No Martino. I’m not in the Vale.
Report abuse
Rachel.
I think you make an excellent suggestion. Come on G.P…… do a follow up article to show how he keeps his waste to such a small volume.
In the meantime you might find this link useful for ideas:
http://www.g-can.net/articles/detail.aspx?articleid=39
Note. In the section on plastics, PSD have now added nos 5 & 6 to those that we can recycle. Yogurt pots and lots of food containers are 5s. So its now 1, 2, 5 & 6…. number found in the recycling triangle, usually on the base.
Report abuse
Ray,
Yes…. I am in the workshops.
rocquaine’s concern is definitly a possibility. Incineration features quite heavily in the ‘options’ that we have to evaluate…… one option is exactly the Suez option.
Evaluation is complicated…. very complicated. It is impossible to figure out what exactly it is you are voting for….. indeed, you are not meant to realise! This is because we don’t vote for different solutions, we vote for ‘criteria’ against which solutions/options are weighed. By far the most popular ‘criteria’ voted for in all the workshops has been ‘Sustainable Waste Management’. Hurrah!…. I hear you say and I said that too! Until I realised that they are weighting incineration as being in the most ‘sustainable’ category possible, so it will obviously come out with a very high score!!
I think that I can categorically say, that the vast majority of delegates that are voting for sustainability are not envisaging that incineration could possibly be described as such.
Report abuse
Rosie – I think you’ll find its called rigging the result.
Nothing like transparency eh?
Report abuse
Sounds like the old Board of Administration never left the building!
Report abuse
Rosie
The problem is that incineration is “sustainable” – i.e. you can carry on doing it indefinitely without much problem. Landfill isn’t sustainable because eventually you run run out of land to fill. …
Mind you it depends on how you define “sustainable” ….. I like to annoy enviro-mentalists by pointing out that, strictly speaking, oil is renewable ( wait a few million years and some more will come along ) wheras solar energy isn’t ( when the sun runs out another one isn’t going to appear to replace it …. )
And don’t get me started on the foolishness that is paper and cardboard recycling ……
Report abuse
@trip15
If you read my comment you will see that what @I am saying is that by using wheelie bins you have an easy and fair way of limiting the amount that households can throw away simply by allowing a different sized bin for each size of household, the majority of island households would not require a 120 litre bin, that is just an inflammatory statement.
As to your comment that most people will put their rubbish into the wheelie bin in a black sack, well I have to say that inpractise that is not generally the case.
I particularly like your statement “Also, once the black bin sacks are collected, they are gone.” That is the whole problem with the rubbish/recycling on this island, the mentality of everyone just assuming that once the black sack is collected it it “gone”.
Nothing that you have written has persuaded me that wheelie bins are bad, you seem to have this big problem with “wheelie bins”, do you not remember the ‘old’ days when we all had a dustbin which we left out to be collected? A wheelie bin is just a modernised dustbin, with wheels for ease of movement, its not a new concept by any stretch. They were a lot less unsightly that a half open, semi spilled cat attacked black sack that is the norm these days.
Report abuse
Toby,
Where do you think the energy to make the oil comes from? :-)
The problem with the word ‘sustainable’ is a bit like the problem with ‘affordable’. Anything can be affordable provided we prioritise it highly enough and save enough money elsewhere, and any activity can be sustainable provided we cut resource usage elsewhere.
The difference is that unlike money, where we have a total budget beyond which we can’t afford more stuff, we have no framework for ensuring that our total use of resources is restricted to what is ‘sustainable’.
Report abuse
D_T
” That is the whole problem with the rubbish/recycling on this island, the mentality of everyone just assuming that once the black sack is collected it it “gone”.
Apart from you that is?.
A rather very inaccurate sweeping statement me thinks. :)
Report abuse
Wouldn’t a simple way to increase recycling to reduce the amount of refuse collections? When i lived in town it was 2 bags twice a week, now i live in Castel, it is 2 bags once a week and by virtue of this i am recycling more and surprisingly I actually don’t mind.
Apologies if I have stated the bl**ding obvious, but just a thought.
Report abuse
Some interesting reading on the gov.gg site. Something that caught my eye and got the grey matter going was the paper about kerbside collection written by integrated skills limited.
One of their conclusions / suggestions was that to run island wide kerbside collection and centralise the service would cost £502k and if it wasn’t centralised (e.g. run by each individual parish), it would cost £1.135m !!!
If what essentially is a collection service, just like general refuse collection, then couldn’t a similar saving be made by centralising current refuse collection, The saving could then be applied to run kerbside collection of recycling so that effectively kerbside results in no additional cost.
I fear that testing current approaches is outside the scope of the project and the states is too happy to continue the status quo rather than questioning things like this or whether their recycling contracts (presumably with local recycling firms) are fair and offer good value. Judging by the success of local privately owned waste handling companies, this is lucrative business. I don’t think the states has the appetite to publicly handle the full recyclate life cycle (collection, compacting, shipping and selling. It’s too easy to pay (more than it costs) to have a private company run it but if they could, I’m sure it would deliver better value to the tax / rate payer. At least showing that this is being pursued / seriously looked at would give a much better bargaining chip when negotiating contracts with the private sector.
Back on topic …..
Introduce Island wide kerbside collection on a twice weekly basis (once for recycling, once for other waste).
Costs to be covered by rates (as they are now). If it works out cheaper …. reduce the refuse rates.
Introduce paid for bags (for general refuse), use the additional funding to drive further waste reduction / recycling initiatives.
I guess my other fear with all of this is that if something like the above doesn’t form part of the waste strategy and the states continue to rely on bring banks for recycling with out any form of incentive (carrot), we will actually see recycling rates begin to reduce.
Report abuse
Jamie,
As I think I mentioned upthread, despite all the fine words last year about minimisation, there is no evidence of it in the vast majority of the scenarios that PSD are evaluating. 10 out of 12 of the scenarios have 50% recycling targets, the same as now, and any amount of that can comprise garden clippings – (about 11% at the moment).
I was discussing this with a friend last night and the comment was made that recycling is expensive. Looking it up, it would seem that averaged over all the recycling streams it costs about £65 – £70 a tonne to recycle, all in. However, PSD were gagging to have a mass burn incinerator that was going to cost the best part of £200 a tonne! So not only does recycling stop resources from being destroyed, it is a third of the price of an incinerator.
As to the cost of collection, everything is collected already, it is just a matter of the householder not mixing it up.
Report abuse
I hope we can trust the Waste Disposal Authority, PSD and Deputy Bernard Flouquet to live up to their statements of late last year.
PSD issued a press release on 1 October 2010 which stated “PUBLIC Services has reassured islanders that the Waste Disposal Authority (WDA) is already committed to using the Waste Hierarchy in the formulation of the revised waste strategy.
Public Services Minister Deputy Bernard Flouquet gave assurances to the Assembly that the Waste Hierarchy would be at the core of the process of formulation of the new waste strategy as it moves forward. Deputy Scott Ogier said that any vote against the Dudley-Owen amendment should not be interpreted as lack of support for the principle of using the Waste Hierarchy.
Indeed the WDA has endorsed its use with waste prevention as its starting point already, followed by re-use, recycling, recovery and disposal and it has featured to date in the consultation strategies”
http://gov.gg/ccm/public-services/Press-Releases/2010/waste-disposal-authority-already-supports-waste-hierarchy.en
I expect PSD and the WDA to live up to their commitment and serve the best interests of our community with a waste minimisation strategy which means focusing resources on the front end of the waste stream first so that there is no need for any expensive final treatment process. With the price of recyclates skyrocketing, maximising recycling will provide the greatest dividend. Source separation is required to minimise waste and maximise returns.
Report abuse
Jamie.
You have hit the nail on the head. Testing / exploring / focusing on the front end of the waste stream, at ways that we can reduce the quantity of residual waste that needs treatment is not part of the consultation. The analytical tool that they are using (WRATE) is not capable of assessing this vital part of a waste strategy. The Lurgi incinerator and the Suez incinerator were both the result of a consultation process that started by fixing the treatment method first and then adjusting the front end (Reduction, Recycling, Collection etc) to suit the treatment. Once the capital cost of a large treatment process is made, the throughput of waste going to the plant must be guaranteed to ensure pay-back of the capital cost. Furthermore, if the treatment is incineration, then a certain throughput of waste is needed to make sure that the burners work at full efficiency. This then stops efforts of waste minimisation which would threaten the required throughput of waste.
A waste minimisation strategy on the other hand, would start at the front end of the waste stream…. focusing on constantly reducing the quantity of waste that needs treatment. Once you have looked and explored all ways that you can Prevent, Reduce, Reuse, Recycle (in that order) you can then see what your tonnages will be and the materials it is made up of. Then… and only then, can you apply a treatment process that is appropriate to the waste that is there.
The form that this consultation process is taking means we have to choose the treatment first. And we are choosing a treatment in a roundabout way that makes it very hard to understand what it is you are voting for because we do it by ranking criteria in order of preference and the criteria are misleading.
Report abuse
Fatboy…… yes, you have stated the bl**ding obvious. Still worth saying tho!
Report abuse
Loving the capitalisation of PUBLIC! A timely reminder that PSD are there to provide PUBLIC SERVICES, not push their own mass-burn incinerator agenda which they have been trying to do since the 1990s.
As to the waste hierarchy, there seems to be a FUNDAMENTAL LACK of understanding that you are supposed to try and do AS MUCH of each stage of the hierarchy as possible before moving on to the next stage.
So evaluating scenarios with 40% actual recycling JUST DOES NOT CUT IT!
ARE YOU LISTENING, PSD!
Report abuse
120 posts already on Mr Marshall’s little bag of rubbish.Good,it shows we’re interested
That sort of number is usually reserved for the six-monthly paid parking debate
Interested enough, you back stabbing politicians, to realise when we’re being shafted
If you think we will happily put up with being gently shuffled along a pre-chosen path which leads to an incinerator then think again
If the rumours ARE indeed true any Board members with any degree of a conscience should abandon ship while they can
The old German excuse of ‘ I was only following orders’ won’t wash next April
Report abuse
Ray….. in reply to your earlier post re Jersey incinerator.
My husband was taken on a tour of the Jersey incinerator. They were given a presentation by the civil servant in charge, who categorically said…’ We are about 40% short of waste to run the incinerators efficiently. We need your waste and want it.’ Ideally, they would rather not have unsorted black bag waste because you don’t know what is in it. You could have batteries and all sorts of nasties. But if we could separate out ALL the recyclates and food waste, then I think that would be very acceptable to them. Or there’s our wood that is currently quoted as being 7,000 tonnes of our residual waste stream….. it would be useful to get rid of that and Jersey could benefit by making energy from it.
The costs for us sending to Jersey, are primarily the costs of baling and shipping. By separating out all the recyclates & biological food waste prior to sending the remainder, we would be reducing the volume and our costs would reduce.
Jersey needs the extra waste to burn so that their twin incinerators burn efficiently. They would also benefit from the extra energy they would be making. We need a route for some of our residual waste, even if it is just temporarily while we sort ourselves out….. to give us some time. You would imagine that between the 2 islands, we could reach a satisfactory agreement that would be mutually beneficial. Sadly…. I am not optimistic about this route. Rumour has it that somehow those doing the negotiations are going to tell us it will be too expensive! How? you have to ask!!
Report abuse
Gilthead:
I am not generally a conspiracy theorist and I would rather not be one either! I do know too, that there are some people in PSD who are working their butts off…. the recycling officer for starters. However…… there is definitely a very bad whiff in the air and soon it will be too late to do anything about it!
Report abuse
WANTED
An enterprising local company willing to print and give away car stickers with the words ..
INCINERATOR ? JUST SAY NO
Report abuse
Rosie – I too don’t hold sway with conspiracy theories. Hard facts will do me.
However weighted questions in consultation documents generally provide the “right” result.
The waft you refer to is starting to taint the air here too.
Report abuse
And as I understand it, there are more weightings and ‘sensitivities’ in this waste matrix than you can shake a stick at.
Ray, I have noticed a few people still running round with orange ribbons on their cars from the last attempt to impose a mass burn incinerator on us. At first I thought they were just too lazy to take them off – now I realise it ain’t over till the fat lady/BF* sings
*delete as appropriate
Report abuse
The above is most enlightening. PSD would like a one stop shop that they too do not need to think about – the Parish collects the rubbish, takes to incinerator, rubbish burns (do not forget the TOXIC ash bottom and top) end of story. All very simple n’est pas oh and lets get a French firm to do the dirty. This is the PSD equivalent of a free lunch which we all know does not exist. I’m very much afraid that our public servants will get what they want and then blame the stakeholders at the public consultation for the result, putting their hands up in horror and telling us that “it was n’t my fault gov”. The WDA want an easy life and for some a re election so they will distance themselves from any result by telling us that the public were consulted and an incinerator is what they wanted.
If we do’t want this to happen then the process must be shown to be flawed as it surely is.
Report abuse
Gilthead.
I am reliably told by the CEO of a large business that BPEO is what you do if you want to get a pre-chosen choice chosen. And BPEO is what we are doing. It is the process that is at fault.
A Pay as You Throw scheme is one of the first things that should have been implemented as a way of reducing residual waste. It still hasn’t been done. Why not? Because they are waiting to see what the waste strategy will be so as to not waste any money on up-front measures that might not be necessary once the chosen strategy is in place. PSD openly admit this.
So what kind of strategy could we possibly end up with that does not require us to make all efforts to reduce residual waste??? Despite claiming the opposite in letters that are being sent out to the workshop participants, it is an open admission that waste minimisation and following the waste hierarchy will not be the central core of the strategy.
Report abuse
Rosie,
You ask ‘What kind of strategy wouldn’t require us to reduce our residual waste’? I’m guessing one that keeps our recycling target the same as it is now. No wonder they are looking at strategies that only have a 50% recycling target because that’s what we’re already doing. I thought that the whole point of that debate they had in the States last Feb was that we were going to go for a waste minimisation strategy wasn’t it?? Reading through this thread makes me think that they have no intention of following that. It looks like they are just going to do what they want.
Report abuse
yup…… I think we are looking at another over-sized heat treatment and this time PSD will tell us that it is what the delegates (who go to the workshops) wanted. And as the icing on the cake, they will tell us that the delegates were all very happy with the workshops.
My new line of business is ‘fortune telling’…… I hope I am proven to be thoroughly rotten at it…. starting with being wrong here. But so far I see nothing to make me think that I will be. sigh!
Report abuse
Caroline Spelman, the UK Environment Secretary, will shortly be announcing proposals to extend a voluntary code to cut down on packaging. Everyone else seems to be aware that packaging and waste need to be reduced. But not Guernsey, it seems, as we seem to be, yet again, ignoring the fundamental principal that until we have a proper waste minimisation strategy we should not be looking at how to dispose of our residual waste. Anyone who cares – get your orange ribbons out again!
Report abuse
A voluntary code eh … That’ll do the trick
Report abuse